The use of zygomatic implants for the retention of nasal prosthesis following rhinectomy: the Morriston experience

Scott, Neil; Kittur, M.A.; Evans, Peter; Dovgalski, Lawrence; Hodder, S.C.

doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2016.01.020

Cited by 19 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…31,70 Several studies have evaluated the effect of zygomatic implants in supporting a nasal prosthesis. [71][72][73] The density and volume of the zygoma facilitate osseointegration, 71 and the location of the zygo-matic implant is often not in the field of radiation therapy, further contributing to implant success. 72 The manufacturing of a nasal prosthesis involves taking an imprint of the affected area, producing a cast from the imprint, casting the final prosthesis, and painting the details that give the prosthesis its unique appearance.…”

Section: Nasalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Osseointegrated Implants and Prosthetic Reconstruction Following Skull Base Surgery

Arnaoutakis

Kadakia

et al. 2017

Seminars in Plastic Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Maxillofacial prosthetics refers to an area of dentistry dedicated to the restoration of skull base and maxillofacial defects acquired from tumor ablative surgery, trauma, or congenital defects. Anatomically, the skull base is complex and conceptually intricate due to its three-dimensional (3D) morphology. Although once considered a defect area prone to significant morbidity and poor quality of life, surgical advancements over the past decade have helped curb these fears. Prostheses have proven to be a valuable adjunct in skull base reconstruction, as these can restore function and cosmesis. The goal of this review article is to highlight current options for prosthetic rehabilitation of skull base defects with an emphasis on the advancements and limitations in the field of prosthetic reconstruction. Preoperative PlanningPatients undergoing treatment for skull base tumors often require interdisciplinary collaboration between several clinical specialties to receive comprehensive management. 1 Presurgical planning involves a concerted dialogue between the surgeons and the various disciplines of speech therapy, medical oncology, and radiation oncology. This patient population requires special needs not only for treatment but also for reconstruction and follow-up care. Prior to ablative surgery, the maxillofacial prosthodontist should be consulted to offer input regarding a patient's capacity for functional rehabilitation. Keywords► skull base defects ► tumor ablative surgery ► osseointegrated implants ► prosthetics AbstractRehabilitation following ablative skull base surgery remains a challenging task, given the complexity of the anatomical region, despite the recent advances in reconstructive surgery. Remnant defects following resection of skull base tumors are often not amenable to primary closure. As such, numerous techniques have been described for reconstruction, including local rotational muscle flaps, pedicled flaps with skin paddle, or even free tissue transfer. However, not all patients are appropriate surgical candidates and therefore may instead benefit from nonsurgical options for functional and aesthetic restoration. Osseointegrated implants and biocompatible prostheses provide a viable alternative for such a patient population. The purpose of this review serves to highlight current options for prosthetic rehabilitation of skull base defects and describe their indications, advantages, and disadvantages.

show abstract

Section: Nasalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Osseointegrated Implants and Prosthetic Reconstruction Following Skull Base Surgery

Arnaoutakis

Kadakia

et al. 2017

Seminars in Plastic Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[2] Various techniques and anatomical locations have been described in the facial region for the placement of osseointegrated implants and its reason is based on the bone buttress where a skeletal anchorage is possible to support the functional load of the implants. In general, maxillofacial rehabilitation with osseointegrated implants uses anchors in the zygomatic, pterygoid, nasomaxillary and alveolar zones [3][4][5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review of Maxillofacial Rehabilitation Using Osseointegrated Implants in Oncological Patients: Buttress Implant Concept

Díez-Suárez¹,

González-Cardín²,

Gómez‐Pedraza³

et al. 2021

Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cancer leaves important consequences in the shape, function and esthetics of the patient, especially when it is cancer of the oral cavity or upper aero-digestive tract. Although reconstruction with local and microvascular flaps is sometimes a viable option, maxillofacial rehabilitation with osseointegrated implants is a well-reported treatment alternative with a high success rate. The main advantages in this modality of rehabilitation are the decrease in biological and economic costs, simplifying the management of these defects by reducing surgical intervention, hospitalization time, postoperative morbidity and treatment time. There are several classification systems; however, there is no classification system that has accurately described the maxillofacial defect under a surgical, prosthetic and reconstructive approach with osseointegrated implants. The purpose of this study is to guide professionals in decision-making for maxillofacial rehabilitation using osseointegrated implants located in the anatomical buttresses of the maxillofacial region.

show abstract

“…When any type of prosthesis is required in this group of patients, the use of osseointegrated implants provide a much‐needed foundation for its retention, stability, and overall patient acceptance. The use of conventional osseointegrated implants in maxillectomy patients have been reported for the support of oral and facial prostheses for some years, and in recent years the use of zygomatic implants have been gaining more acceptance in the management of patients with complex maxillary and midface tumors …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The use of conventional zygomatic implants inserted in a horizontal manner across the face to support nasal prostheses was first described by Bowden and has subsequently been more widely adopted with reports of larger case series demonstrating high survival and predictability with a low complication rate. Figure demonstrates the use of this technique in a patient requiring total rhinectomy for an intranasal squamous cell carcinoma.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The use of conventional osseointegrated implants in maxillectomy patients have been reported for the support of oral and facial prostheses for some years, 8 and in recent years the use of zygomatic implants have been gaining more acceptance in the management of patients with complex maxillary and midface tumors. 9,10 The use of conventional zygomatic implants inserted in a horizontal manner across the face to support nasal prostheses was first described by Bowden 11 and has subsequently been more widely adopted with reports of larger case series 9 demonstrating high survival and predictability with a low complication rate. Figure 1 demonstrates the use of this technique in a patient requiring total rhinectomy for an intranasal squamous cell carcinoma.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Primary vs secondary zygomatic implant placement in patients with head and neck cancer—A 10‐year prospective study

Butterworth

2019

Head & Neck

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Zygomatic implants can provide excellent remote anchorage to support the prosthetic rehabilitation of patients treated for maxillary and midfacial tumors. Methods Patients who underwent zygomatic implant placement by the author between 2006 and 2016 as part of their oncology treatment were followed prospectively. Results Forty‐nine consecutively treated patients received 131 zygomatic implants of which 9 failed and were removed from 4 patients; 24 patients (49%) received radiotherapy either before or after implant insertion. The overall 12‐month survival estimate was 94% and the 60‐month estimate was 92%. Conclusions The use of zygomatic implants in the management of maxillary and midfacial malignancy is a predictable prosthetic treatment modality to support complex oral and facial prostheses. Their use with or without free tissue transfer can provide effective prosthetic rehabilitation with high implant survival irrespective of the timing of placement or the need for adjuvant radiotherapy. Clinical Significance Zygomatic Implants provide an excellent platform for the restoration of the dentition and facial structures affected by maxillary and midfacial malignant disease.

show abstract

The use of zygomatic implants for the retention of nasal prosthesis following rhinectomy: the Morriston experience

Cited by 19 publications

References 8 publications

Osseointegrated Implants and Prosthetic Reconstruction Following Skull Base Surgery

Osseointegrated Implants and Prosthetic Reconstruction Following Skull Base Surgery

A Review of Maxillofacial Rehabilitation Using Osseointegrated Implants in Oncological Patients: Buttress Implant Concept

Primary vs secondary zygomatic implant placement in patients with head and neck cancer—A 10‐year prospective study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About